ALT Conference Cardiff, 2015

Using Multiple Choice Questions in Summative Assessment

Penny English, Cailin Morrison and Andrew GilbertAnglia Law School

Context

University – wide project to look at the assessmentsConcern that language skills are hindering students’ performanceMarking loads

2

Where we started

Selected two of the first year core modules with examsWe then asked ourselves the questions• what do we want to assess? • how can we do this?

3

Would MCQs be appropriate?

• Emphasis on quality over quantity• More time thinking and less time writing• Without sacrificing breadth of knowledge

4

A changing environment

• Diverse student body• Availability of information• Employability• Demands on staff time

5

Experience elsewhere

• From mid 20th century in US• Some reluctance to use MCQs in

undergraduate legal education• Seen as less realistic and rigorous

6

Benefits

• Perceived objectivity of marking• Speed• Demonstrate breadth of knowledge

7

Potential disadvantages

• Promote surface learning• Require less critical thinking

8

Constitutional and Administrative Law module• Year 1, Semester 1• Assessed 50% exam (2 hours), 50%

coursework• Exam now 35% MCQs, 65% seen case study

9

Outcome

• Overall marks in line with the previous year• Of 109 students, 79 did better on the MCQ

than the case study• Average difference of 9.4% between the two

elements

10

Failure rates by element

• Overall 8.26% of students failed the MCQ element (i.e. below 40%)

• 18.35% failed the case study element

11

Conclusions?

• MCQs do not appear to either advantage or disadvantage international students

• Overall has not improved average marks in the module (represents 17.25% of overall mark)

• More analysis being undertaken

12

Was there a language effect?

• 21.3% of UK domiciled students failed the case study and 8% failed the MCQ.

• 11.8% of non-UK domiciled students failed the case study and 8.8% the MCQ

13